Bobby_2021

Typical SD green kind of move. Get rich by oppression. Blame others for getting rich by oppression.

What's the alternative. Renewable energy could not scale to provide energy to all people, even if they had the money and resources to opt for it. Not to mention all the implications of waste that is generated by the renewable energy infrastructure and the cost of maintenance. It's a dead end. Doubling down on nuclear energy is the only thing that has the remote possibility of saving us. It makes sense to invest in places where you get huge returns as opposed to minimal returns. Simple. Solving energy crisis within decades, say 2050, is a pretty good goal to set, even if it is bloody expensive. It's their problem that they didn't invest in it early and fear mongered against it. Acknowledge the mistake and rectify it as soon as possible. With renewables what you get after decades is a shit ton of junk waste to manage while giving no significant return on investment either. It's a dead end if you are serious.

Go Nuclear. ?

@hoodrow trillson I can confirm this. The Indian right wing has been pretty aggressively denying climate change until some of them changed their minds last year when literal hot winds have been blowing up their face. Last summer was so unbelievably hot. Rain patterns are disrupted as well. Sometimes it's too much rain and sometimes it's too less rain. And we have old dams near our place that could wipe us off the map if too much rain falls at the wrong time. When the consequences are right in their face and threatens their life, people are willing to accept the Truth of climate change. However transitioning to renewables is not the right strategy. Only nuclear energy can satisfy the current energy demands. It's unreasonable to expect people to give up cars all of a sudden.

Show me the math. The math clearly states that participation rates have no impact on performance at top levels. You can verify this with stats from countries with relatively high participation if women, poland for example. ---- Also, have you considered that people are likely to do the things that they are good at? You will endure sacrifices and participate only if you expect yourself to win big. You are starting with the assumption. "If there are 100 judit polgars..." Well, there are not.

You are imagining effort. Not just at God levels, but even at human and personal level.

Yes. Reality should be effortless. Effort is just a concept in your mind that has relevance only if you think about it. You can do it effortlessly or with huge amount of effort. But the default case scenario is that we don't know how to do things effortlessly. Once we break the illusion, those things that required effort become second nature to us.

??

We should be doubling down on nuclear energy for 80%. And put the rest of effort into renewables if you are serious. I am getting the feeling that people are not serious. They want to feel like they are doing something rather than get tangible results. Nuclear energy is the only thing that can save us. Renewable energy is a fad.

That hundred 147 points has more in value compared to a 1000 points at sub 2000 levels. That last 100 points requires as much work as getting 1000 points at some lower levels. And 16 year old kids from china break the 2700 rating mark as if it nothing. As far as I can remember, I have never seen a female player break 2700 mark except for Judit Polgar. ----- Here is what you need to understand: The best female chess players on the planet already most probably are playing chess at professional level. The best male chess players on the planet are already played chess at professional level. Adding more female/male players into the mix will NOT significantly change the environment at the top. The top is full of outliers and they do not represent normies and you are only talking about adding more normies into the mix. Men as a whole are far more interested to play chess even for fun because of their logical nature. The whole study starts with the assumption that men and women are equal in logical capacity to begin with. With that assumption, you go looking for explanations to confirm that World view and pick on participation rates. In fact the participation theory has been disproved by studies which took countries with different proportion of women who play chess and found that it has minimal impact on performance at the top.

The idea that participation rates affect difference in performance has been tested and found to be true in the sample size they took from India. Here is a twitter thread explaining it. Another guy did manage to replicate the results in the case of India. But that doesn't hold up for other countries. https://followtheargument.org/gender-differences-among-top-performers-in-chess Difference in participation do not explain difference in performance overall. I remember reading a much better technical refutation of the claim, but I couldn't manage to find that paper. ---- You can take a preferred sample size as you want. Take the women chess player across the whole world (bigger participation) and take the male chess players from any country( smaller participation) and measure the difference in performance. Partition rates and top performance are a whole different things.

First of all, what kinds of PHDs, in what kinds of domain are you talking about. There is a phd course for everything nowadays. A lot of it is pure BS. College has been degrading in value since everyone had access to them. A lot of men who are more than capable of earning a PHD simply choose not to.

You can measure the freedom of choice. There are countries that offers more freedom of choice and we can measu the outcomes in such countries. In India there is a higher % of women in stem compared to united states or Scandinavia. Apparently sociological factors have been forcing women to choose jobs/degrees that were not in alignment with their interests. I can personally confirm this.

Why more men play chess than women? Why more men watch philosophy videos than women? Why more men choose STEM than women? Why women in countries with high freedom index choose less stem subjects compared to women in countries with less freedom? Obviously women don't proactively take an interest in logical things. And it's ok. It's not sexiest by any means. And if observing differences makes you sexist, then I am sexist.

1. Are all differences, the same? I am not talking about a specific distinction, but the abstract nature of a distinction/difference. What is the abstract level nature of a difference and how does it relate to other differences? Here Leo says that there is more to reality than distinctions. How can that be possible? There should only be more distinctions. Right? Thoughts??

Any updates on this?

Do you see any difference between the visual experience of a tree and a cat? Are there two letters the same or different? A B - Different B B - Same This difference exists in the visual experience. You can choose to build on top of it by conceptualizing. ----- When I say I make distinctions what I mean is that I imagine a distinction in my mind. Visual experience is God's mind. I can recognize and conceptualize that in my human mind. All minds are capable of coming up with distinction. The human mind itself is a distinction imagined by the mind of God.

The words you are seeing on a screen are distinctions in reality.

Reality is the imagination of distinctions. That's what I am trying to get with this thread. I see Nothing but distinctions. And it's not mental constructions, although those are made up of distinctions as well. There is nothing behind the veil. Veil is the thing. I can get behind this. Distinctions are fundamentally a thought in the mind of God. Distinctions can also be imagined in the human mind. That's already a distinction. Whaaat?? A tree is a car because tree is different from a cat. And that's not a language gane here. I am talking about an actual car and an actual tree. Those are Distinctions thought of in the mind of God. Physical reality is composed of distinctions. Good analogy. I am still racking my head over this. Well said. Definitely something to conemp over a long time.

Where do you want this thread to go? This thread is for covering the legal aspects of the Tate case, evidence, his statements and it's future course. If you don't discuss facts here, then the default case is someone spreading disinformation from Tate which are nothing but embarrassing lies. This thread is far from dead. If you really understood this, it's only beginning since the investigation isn't even over. More serious charges are pending. Perhaps this thread will be dead when they are convicted.Which is my speculation after looking at the case. --- Talking about Trump isn't a derailment. They are members of the Tate camp, aka the Far right. Even the supposed right wing but non Trump supporters have shunned Tate. This includes the people covering the case. They are not left wing, but surprisingly right wing. The left camp is still triggered about his misogyny statements lol. That's a distraction since he did far more heinous things which are not even known outside.

Can you give me such an interpretation of the God's mind, independent of distinctions? And perception is Truth. Perceptions are distinctions imagined by God. I didn't use any complex logical statements enough to deconstruct here. It's impossible to imagine a reality independent of distinctions

It looks more like you need a rest from Leo. ?

The charges are not yet finalized. Charges related to minor trafficking and money laundering are pending and they will soon be charged. The formal investigation began only in April 2022. They have not finished the investigation. It's good to remain neutral and see facts without emotions. There is plenty of evidence available in the public domain and some of them is available in this thread and the resources for knowing more about them are mentioned here. The trial will take time. Things move slow here. The trial should take place in October by the earliest or by early 2024.

He has been charged with human trafficking in continued form, rape in continued form, and forming an organized criminal gang. It's been two months. Here are the charges for Andrew and Tristan. Second set of charges are incoming soon. These charges one could be the biggest blow by far for Team Tate since it's expected to be about 1) Minor Trafficking. 2) Money laundering. 3) Favouring the perpetrators. 4) Influencing statements. Imagine even being investigated for trafficking minors for making pornographic content. It's so over. Any public figure that even remotely supports him is not going to judged well. It's so bad, like supporting J.Epstein. Nothing short of reputational suicide. Not even close. The court evaluated the brothers net worth to be 10 mill. That's the total assets for two people as found by the court. At best there were a few months where he earned a lot from HU, around a couple of millions/month. He was putting a facade for the most part. Highly likely that he rented his planes and yacht. To remain truly neutral requires a lot of work. Giving Tate the benefit of doubt is not being neutral. There hasn't been any competent authority speaking up for Tate's opposition. He had unanimous control over the narrative.

It's so over bros.